Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8071075" data-attributes="member: 12731">Yes. The solution is - I'm afraid - to simply let Fighter be the character class that fights really well. Its abilities should be general-purpose (Action Surge is an excellent example) and not support any specific other pillar. People wanting the Fighter to be more simply have to realize what they need is already there: A fighter with stronger exploration pillar = a RangerA fighter with stronger social pillar = a BardA fighter with stronger connection to the gods = PaladinA fighter with stronger connection to the spirits = BarbarianKeep the Fighter pure. (Or "boring" depending on your perspective)In the polls, the Fighter is one of the classes people want improved the most. But unlike the Beastmaster, Wild Mage or Four Elements Monk (say), I think Fighter is included by people that don't appreciate the Fighter for what it is and what it needs to be. While that Monk for instance really needs to be redesigned, I think the best solution to the Fighter is simply to tell the people that demand its transformation to play something else.That doesn't mean I can't see more specialist Fighters (Warlord anyone?). Only that there's nothing wrong with the fighter itself. It just doesn't meet the expectations of people that for some reason want it to do the things we already have Rangers and Paladins for.Generic classes (i.e. a Fighter you yourself can turn into a social adventurer or explorer) is bad for D&D. Any time you want a specific deal, you should be forced to pick a whole package (such as the way the Paladin comes with a whole slew of abilities, AND forces you to abide by its moral standards).</blockquote>

Verification